RON PAUL

(You Tube) Earlier this month we learned that the Obama Administration is significantly expanding the number of covert Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) agents overseas. From just a few hundred DIA agents overseas today, the administration intends to eventually deploy some 1,600 covert agents.

The nature of their work will also shift, away from intelligence collection and more toward covert actions. This move signals a major change in how the administration intends to conduct military and paramilitary operations overseas. Unfortunately it is not a shift toward peace, but rather to an even more deadly and disturbing phase in the “war on terror.”

Surely attacks on foreign countries will increase as a result of this move, but more and more the strikes will take place under cover of darkness and outside the knowledge of Congress or the American people. The move also represents a further blurring of the lines between the military and intelligence services, with the CIA becoming more like a secret military unto itself. This is a very troubling development.

In 2010, I said in a speech that there had been a CIA coup in this country. The CIA runs the military, the drone program, and they are in drug trafficking. The CIA is a secretive government all on its own. With this new expanded Defense Intelligence Agency presence overseas it will be even worse. Because the DIA is operationally under control of the Pentagon, direct Congressional oversight of the program will be more difficult. Perhaps this is as intended. The CIA will be training the DIA in its facilities to conduct operations overseas. Much of this will include developing targeting data for the president’s expanding drone warfare program.

Already the president has demonstrated his preference for ever more drone attacks overseas. In Pakistan, for example, President Obama has in his first four years authorized six times more drone strikes than under all eight years of the Bush Administration. Nearly three thousand individuals have been killed by these drones, many of those non-combatants.

President Obama said recently of Israel’s strikes against the Palestinians in Gaza, “No country on Earth would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.” This announcement by the administration amounts to precisely that: the US intends to rain down ever more missiles on citizens overseas. I believe what the president says about Israel is true everywhere, so what about those overseas who live in fear of our raining missiles? How will they feel about the United States? Is it not possible that we may be inviting more blow back by expanding the covert war overseas? Does that make us safer?

An exhaustive study earlier this year by Stanford and New York University law schools found that US drone strikes on Pakistan are “damaging and counterproductive,” potentially creating more terrorists than they kill. Its recommendations of a radical re-appraisal of the program obviously fell on deaf ears in the administration.

Thousands of new DIA spies are to be hired and placed undercover alongside their CIA counterparts to help foment ever more covert wars and coups in foreign lands. Congress is silent. Where will it all end?

(You Tube) Not just Infowars.com, but many a political researcher and pundit took notice that Ron Paul’s farewell address to Congress was a historic and very important speech spelling out that our country is becoming a corrupt empire and that we’re becoming a tyranny of tyrannies.

The New York Times, LA Times, Fox News and many others all took notice of his farewell address, something that doesn’t normally happen with a Congressman, as he laid out the fork in the road America has come to: liberty or tyranny.

I asked one of my great reporters and video editors, Jon Bowne, to just back everything Congressman Paul said up, but when we talk about something, we like to show news articles or video clips because so many are skeptical and in denial about the ravaged state of our liberties.

Originally we intended the piece to be just something for the Infowars Nightly News, but it quickly snowballed into a three week project as we did more and more research backing up everything he said.

So, now this is essentially Ron Paul’s Farewell 2.0. It’s a film because his farewell address was about his life and about where this country is going and the choice we have. So it really is Ron Paul: The Film.

We struggled with the name for it: “Ron Paul’s Farewell Address Documented,” “Ron Paul’s Farewell Address Animated,” “Ron Paul’s Farewell Address Illustrated and Documented,” call it what you will.

Here is “Ron Paul: The Film” because he condensed down his thirty plus years of fighting tyranny into this incredibly important and profound warning that if we don’t turn things around, we are in deep, deep trouble and are going to repeat history.

(Thomas Dishaw) Video highlight of Ron Paul’s Presidential Debate in Iowa. By far his best performance. Ron makes a lot of sense,unlike the crooks standing to his right. Please re-post this video on Facebook and send this link out to your e-mail list.

(Eric W. Dolan) Speaking to a Current TV panel after the Republican presidential debate on Saturday, former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) suggested that Texas Rep. Ron Paul may see a new influx of support.

The post-debate panel included Former Vice President Al Gore, Current TV Anchor Cenk Uygur, and The Young Turks contributors Michael Shure and Brian Unger.

“Ron Paul going into this debate was essentially tied with Mitt Romney, and Newt [Gingrich] of course was ascendant,” Granhold said. “I think Ron Paul may end up seeing a surge as a result of this.”
“But I think Romney, especially with the $10,000 bet, showed that he is completely out of touch.”

Paul, a libertarian, has gained an enthusiastic following for his strong views on limited government, free market economics and non-interventionist foreign policy. In the 2008 Republican presidential primary his views clearly made him an outlier, but many of his economic positions have now been adopted by mainstream Republicans — thanks in part to the tea party movement.

Paul is outperforming Romney in the key GOP primary state of Iowa but trailing behind Gingrich, according to a poll released last week.
Source-http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/11/former-gov-granholm-predicts-surge-for-ron-paul/

(Joe Wolverton) Senator Rand Paul, a self-described representative of the Tea Party, worries that the small progress toward the restoration of limited government may be “set back” by the upcoming Republican presidential nomination.

In a letter to the Des Moines Register, the son of GOP White House hopeful Ron Paul set forth his two goals for striving to protect the “conservative movement” from being hampered by the nomination of a candidate with “a different set of ideas and values.”
The first of Senator Paul’s two goals is to “prevent the European debt crisis from consuming America next.” Although certainly a priority for the Senator, the rest of the letter is devoted to details of his second goal: electing a “constitutional[ly] conservative president in 2012.”
An urgent issue for the Republican Party and the United States is the election of a president who will remain faithful to his Oath of Office from the moment his hand is placed on the Bible on Inauguration Day.
While Senator Paul admits that anyone on the current roster of Republican candidates would be an improvement over Barack Obama, he calls out the two men leading in the polls — Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — for not representing “the tea party, the conservative movement, or the type of change our country desperately needs….”
In his indictment of the former Governor of Massachusetts and the former Speaker of the House, Paul’s first charge against both is their support for the $700-billion bank bailouts signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2008.
Paul quotes the Obama Treasury Department as describing the bailouts, officially called the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), as “one of the most unpopular government programs in American history.”
A D V E R T I S E M E N T

In a debate in October, Romney defended the bailouts as necessary “to keep the entire currency of the country worth something. My experience tells me that we were on the precipice, and we could have had a complete meltdown of our entire financial system, wiping out all the savings of the American people. So action had to be taken.”
As for current “frontrunner” Newt Gingrich, he claims to have changed his mind on TARP after having his ear bent by a number of “very right wing” businessmen. These unnamed advisors convinced Gingrich that the financial meltdown was a “true crisis” and that the bailouts were necessary to prevent the financial system from suffering a “heart attack.”
Further evidence of the necessity for the bailout of financial institutions was provided to Gingrich by the fact that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and Secretary of the Treasury agreed “that the global financial system was on the edge of total failure” and so Gingrich changed his position and favored passage of the legislation.
The next charge leveled by Senator Paul at Romney and Gingrich is their “outspoken and unapologetic” support for the individual mandate of ObamaCare.
The individual mandate provision of the Obama health care requires that all residents of the United States purchase a qualifying medical insurance policy or face tax penalties and possible imprisonment. This mandate is the first time in history that the Congress of the United States has passed a law forcing citizens to purchase a commodity regardless of personal preference or financial ability.
Neither candidate can run from their record as both have for years ardently advocated the government-mandated purchase of health insurance.
As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney signed a health care plan into law that contains an individual mandate provision nearly identical to that included in the ObamaCare legislation.
In the case of Newt Gingrich, in an interview in 2005, Gingrich said that if a person earning over $50,000 a year did not have health insurance, then he was in favor of the government forcing that person to either purchase a policy or post a bond.
While serving as a Congressman in 1993, Gingrich made similar comments advocating a national healthcare system supported by an individual mandate. “I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement you either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way indicate that you are going to be held accountable.”
Senator Paul’s letter is his way of making sure Gingrich, Romney, and all of the potential Republican nominees are held accountable for their policy positions and that they are truly dedicated to principles of freedom as enunciated in the Constitution.
So seriously does Paul take the support of these two men for TARP and the individual mandate that he argues that it “disqualifies” them from receiving the support of the Tea Party.
Beyond their support for two programs that must be undone if the American Republic is ever to return to within its proper, constitutional bounds, Rand Paul points out that both men cannot sincerely commit to accomplishing that critical goal in light of their irrefutable promotion of expansive government intervention in the lives of citizens and of corporate welfare.
Briefly, Paul describes Romney as a “moderate, northeastern, don’t-rock-the-boat Republican” and that everyone in the party gets that.
As for Gingrich, however, Paul is concerned that the rank and file of his party are “being sold a bill of goods” that doesn’t represent the truth about Newt Gingrich and his philosophy and policies.
Paul proposes that despite Gingrich’s multiple “flip-flops,” his heart remains with the left wing of the Republican Party. Says Paul, “His record features ‘highlights’ such as global warming commercials with Nancy Pelosi, support for cap-and-trade, funding Planned Parenthood, and, recently, announcing that life does not begin at conception.”
All those acts are certainly antithetical to the positions taken by the conservative wing of the Republican Party.
The list of sins against the Constitution for which Newt Gingrich has never repented is long, according to Senator Paul’s opinion piece.
Next, there is Gingrich’s work as a lobbyist for Freddie Mac — one of the agencies whose malfeasance precipitated the nation’s economic meltdown.
Gingrich, Paul says, “took in nearly $40 million promoting big-government ideas….”
Then there is Gingrich’s alleged capitulations on “right-to-work laws” and the Second Amendment, both critical components of the conservative agenda.
And, as opposed to calling for the abolition of the Department of Education, Gingrich actually voted to create it.
When push comes to shove, Paul warns, Gingrich will put party above principle, as he did in the congressional race in New York in 2009 when he supported the “liberal” Republican candidate who eventually lost and threw her support behind the Democrat in the race.
So, Paul ably presents the case for the prosecution against the two men at the top of recent Iowa polls.
The conclusion drawn is that neither man is a conservative and that if the Republican Party is to “continue the work [it] resolved in 2010 to undertake” then it must not elect a nominee who has a track record of advocating the expansion of government and the concomitant abandonment of the Constitution and the small federal government of limited and enumerated powers created by it.
Source-http://www.infowars.com/rand-paul-warns-gop-voters-gingrich-romney-are-not-conservatives/

“They come from the same mold,” he said on “Meet the Press.” “They’re about the same. They’re both on the defensive, they’re both explaining themselves … Why should we have a nominee that is going to spend most of the their time explaining themselves and deciding what position they were on and when?” (Watch video below.)

“I think if you are consistent it speaks for itself,” Paul said. “You know nobody ever challenges me and I don’t have to brag about it either because everybody knows exactly what I’m going to do and exactly what I’ve done for 30 years.”

Paul called Gingrich working for Freddie Mac and being paid more than $1 million “immoral,” and he said Romney had a more “diplomatic” style than Gingrich.

Pressed by David Gregory on whether Paul would consider a third-party run if his bid to win the GOP nomination is unsuccessful, Paul declined to definitively say he would not pursue such a course.

“I have no plans to do that,” he said. “I’m not going to rule anything out or anything in.”
Source-http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-paul-romney-gingrich-20111211,0,6499667.story

(John Thorpe) It is my belief that, in one month, Ron Paul will shock the world and win the Iowa Caucuses.
Granted, that belief goes against all the polling data and all the money data and all the common sense in the world. Mitt Romney has all the money in the world, and has the national party secretly/silently pulling for him to win. Newt Gingrich has the lead in the polls and seems to have caught fire at just the right time. Michele Bachmann is from a neighboring state, and, well, you never know.

Even Rick Santorum has an outside shot at a decent showing, based on his practically living in the state this year.

But Ron Paul has the one thing that you cannot buy, you cannot fake, and you cannot manufacture: genuine enthusiasm and a team of dedicated volunteers. His team on the ground in Iowa is one of the best that has ever been assembled. Iowa Governor Terry Branstad doesn’t think Paul will win outright, but sees him finishing in second place with a very solid 15 to 18 percent of the vote.

“Ron Paul has got probably the best organization and has a very loyal following. He’s got more yard signs and bumper stickers than anybody else,” he said to Politico. “I don’t think he’ll win, but I think he will get 15 to 18 percent. The person who wins is going to probably get 25 percent plus.”

That very well may be the case, and much will depend on the next two debates and – oddly enough – the weather on caucus day. One, if he can continue to hammer down Gingrich’s support, he can drive the race down to where the winner will be in his 15 to 18 percent range. If he does this, it will be by convincing Iowans that Gingrich is not the conservative he claims to be. (And, of course, Ron Paul would be correct — Newt Gingrich is actually to the left of Mitt Romney on many, many GOP issues).

Two, this will have the added effect of adding supporters to his own drive, as Gingrich’s supporters literally have nowhere else to go. They want a conservative, and it seems that the only true conservative left in this race is Ron Paul. He could pick up a few more points here, which would push him over the top.

(Like John Thorpe’s analysis? Sign up for his newsletter here.)

Third, as I mentioned, the weather can have a tremendous impact on the Iowa Caucuses. Unlike a primary election, where one’s commitment to the process is only as long as one’s line to vote, a caucus can last all night long. Iowans have to travel to someone’s home or a small, local center (like a church or a rec center) to engage in an hours-long debate on who to support. There are rounds of voting, eliminations of candidates, and tedious speeches. It’s a long, drawn-out affair. It is one thing to support a candidate; it is quite another to go through THAT process to support the candidate.

If you add to that process a snowstorm, or just plain bad weather (and really, Iowa in January, is there anything other than bad weather?) you change the game significantly. You make it such that only the most dedicated supporters will show up, drudging through a foot of snow and subzero temperatures to deal with the caucuses. Those supporters? Ron Paul fans.
More than just an analysis of how I think things will play out is my hope, for the future of this nation, that Ron Paul is the nominee. As I have said before, I am not a Republican – though I used to be. I believe some things need to be socialized. I believe big business is too big, too powerful, and its powers are a harm to liberty. I believe the wars are a mistake and the military is too big.

Ron Paul and I would disagree on many issues. I don’t feel the gold standard is an acceptable monetary policy, and cutting government back to the extreme he’s advocated is not workable. However, these are policy differences. They can be negotiated or legislated into a compromise.

But on liberty, on human rights, and on the Constitution, Ron Paul is the only candidate who gets it. Without liberty, all the socialized medicine plans (things I would support) mean nothing. Without liberty, tax cuts or tax hikes, balanced budgets or deficits, clean air or pollution, mean nothing. Liberty is where we begin and end the conversation in America.

For far too long, government has chipped away at the rights of Americans. Ron Paul would reverse that trend. Whatever else he does is secondary to that prime directive. That is why I hope I am correct in predicting Ron Paul’s victory in this January’s Iowa Caucuses.
Source-http://www.forbes.com/sites/benzingainsights/2011/12/07/why-ron-paul-will-win-iowa/

(Kurt Nimmo) The establishment media campaign to ignore Ron Paul despite his immense popularity received a blow this week when the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism released the results of a new study.
PEJ looked at 20 million Tweets about the race for president and found that Ron Paul “fared far better” than any other Republican candidate on Twitter.
Paul was referred to positively in 55 percent of the 1.1 million assessments studied by PEJ. “That is a differential for Paul of 40 points on the positive side,” notes Pew.
“This treatment of Paul stands in contrast to that of most of the GOP field, for whom Twitter has been a tough neighborhood,” the study concludes. “Five of Paul’s seven GOP rivals have had negative opinions on Twitter outstrip positive ones by roughly 2-1 or more.”
In addition to his favorability on Twitter, Ron Paul dominates the blogosphere according to Pew.
Paul’s popularity on the internet is due primarily to his youthful base. “Ron Paul has managed to do what no libertarian organization or electoral candidate ever has: Energize the masses of young Americans, all throughout the nation’s college campuses, including its most leftist, and get them interested in the politics of freedom and peace,” writes Anthony Gregory. “Ron Paul’s young supporters attend his campus rallies cheering for the gold standard, the Constitution, and a Jeffersonian foreign policy.”
This was apparent in Ames, Iowa, on Thursday when Paul drew a standing-room-only gathering of more than 1,000 college-age students. “Paul traditionally draws a great deal of enthusiasm from young supporters. A speech at Louisiana State University in September drew an estimated 1,200 people and a speech at Webster Hall in New York that same month pulled in an even larger crowd. Paul will hold another youth rally Friday night at the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls,” writes Jason M. Volack for ABC News.
Source-http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-dominates-favorable-twitter-election-coverage/

(AP) Texas Rep. Ron Paul is emerging as a significant factor in the Republican presidential race, especially in Iowa. He’s been long dismissed by the GOP establishment, but the libertarian-leaning candidate is now turning heads beyond his hard-core followers – and rising in some polls – just weeks before the state holds the leadoff presidential caucuses and four years since his failed 2008 bid.

Paul’s sharp criticism of government spending and U.S. monetary policy hasn’t changed since then.

And while his isolationist brand of foreign policy may be a non-starter for some establishment Republicans, its appeal among independents is helping Paul gain ground in a crowded Republican field. His boost is an indication of just how volatile the Republican presidential race is in this state and across the country.

“The good news is the country has changed in the last four years in a way I never would have believed,” Paul told about 80 Republicans and independents at the Pizza Ranch restaurant in this town on Friday. “In the last four years, something dramatic has happened.”

What has helped Paul rise here has been more methodic than dramatic

His campaign here is a stark comparison to the shoestring, rag-tag operation of four years ago that attracted a narrow band of supporters.

This time, he has built an Iowa organization with the look of a more mainstream campaign. He has raised more money and started organizing his campaign earlier than before. Paul was the first candidate to begin airing television ads this fall, and has maintained the most consistent advertising schedule in Iowa.

“We have a more structured, methodical, traditional campaign with Ron Paul here in Iowa more often,” said Drew Ivers, an Iowa Republican Party central committee member and Paul’s Iowa campaign chairman.

Paul is better-known this time, and has spent almost twice as much time in Iowa at this point in the 2012 campaign than in his bid for the 2008 caucuses. Paul finished in fifth place, closely behind Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson in Iowa in 2008.

The intense focus on Iowa this time may be working, with surveys showing Paul is reaching deeper into the caucus electorate.

A recent Bloomberg News poll showed him in close second place in Iowa, behind Herman Cain and narrowly ahead of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

But it’s unclear whether Paul can cobble together a broad enough electorate to win the caucuses with a plurality of the vote. At the very least, he will impact the results of the Jan. 3 contest. But to what degree is anyone’s guess.

The one thing that hasn’t changed from four years ago is Paul’s style.

He remains the mild-mannered, professorial former obstetrician, delivering long explanations of the history of U.S. monetary and trade policy.

In Vinton, he stoked the audience when he called for cutting $1 trillion from the federal deficit his first year in office, primarily by vastly reducing U.S. foreign aid.

But he also called for shrinking the military budget by reducing the U.S. military presence around the world, arguing that Congress and military contractors are too closely tied together.

“Yes, we have to have national security, but we don’t get it by bankrupting our country and being in everyone’s face constantly,” Paul said.

The sentiment rings true with Charles Betz, a 47-year-old network engineer from nearby Tama, Iowa. He has typically been an independent voter, but is registered as a Republican so he can caucus for Paul on Jan. 3.

It’s Paul’s foreign and national security policy that has drawn fire from establishment Republicans. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who is competing with Paul in Iowa for the outsider vote, has been vocally critical of Paul’s stance.

So has Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, a Republican who has been courted by most of the GOP candidates.

“I gave Paul credit for having the most ambitious plan to reduce the debt, which he does,” Branstad told The Associated Press. “But I don’t agree with him on foreign policy, at all. I’m real concerned with his views on that.”

Paul’s rivals have particularly criticized his view that Iran does not pose a serious threat to the U.S., a point Paul made again Friday.

“Think about how the war drums were beating to get into Iraq. None of it was true, and I don’t believe the stories now about why we should be shaking in our boots over Iran,” he said. “They are absolutely incapable of attacking us.”

Paul was traveling from small-town Vinton to equally small Anamosa Friday, before capping the day with a major rally in metropolitan Cedar Rapids, where he was to be endorsed by the founder of the Cedar Rapids tea party.

His focus isn’t limited to Iowa.

Paul will be in New Hampshire early next week, where he finished fifth four years ago.

This time, Paul’s fiscally-conservative profile combined with his anti-interventionist foreign policy could help him do better.

As in Iowa, he established a paid Iowa staff in New Hampshire earlier, and larger than his 2008 campaign. He was the first candidate to run ads in the state this time.
Source-http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_THE_RON_PAUL_FACTOR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-11-18-18-27-33

(Paul Joseph Watson) Despite being given just 89 seconds of speaking time during Saturday’s Republican debate, Congressman Ron Paul is in a dead heat with fellow top tier candidates Cain, Romney and Gingrich for the highly influential Iowa caucuses, placing second just one percentage point behind Cain amongst likely voters.

“A Bloomberg News poll shows Cain at 20 percent, Paul at 19 percent, Romney at 18 percent and Gingrich at 17 percent among the likely attendees with the caucuses that start the nominating contests seven weeks away.”
Paul is undoubtedly in the strongest position going into the race, because his support is “more solidified than his rivals,” a key factor given that 60 per cent of respondents in the poll said they could still be persuaded to change their vote.
32 per cent of Paul’s backers say they are sticking with the Congressman, whereas only 25 per cent of Romney supporters and 17 per cent of Gingrich voters say the same.
Being the first event of the electoral nomination process, taking place this year on January 3, the Iowa caucuses are traditionally seen as a highly influential in determining the final GOP nominee. If Ron Paul takes Iowa he can no longer be ignored by the establishment media and will have a genuine shot at building momentum for a victorious campaign.

The results of the poll vindicate the Paul campaign’s angry response to CBS News’ treatment of the Congressman when he was afforded just 89 seconds out of a 90 minute debate on Saturday night in South Carolina.
It subsequently transpired that Paul and other candidates had been the victims of a deliberate CBS policy to restrict questions to so-called lesser candidates, despite the fact that Paul’s figures have consistently proven he is a top tier performer.
As Reason’s Seth McKelvey highlights, even candidates with significantly lower polling figures than Paul were given more time.
Despite his embarrassing faux-pas in the previous debate when he failed to remember the name of the federal agency he wanted to abolish, Rick Perry, whose support has been sinking for weeks, was given the most time out of all the candidates during the CBS News debate.
Source-http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-just-1-point-behind-frontrunner-cain-in-crucial-iowa-poll/

(Kurt Nimmo) Once again, Rep. Ron Paul represented the voice of reason at the latest Republican debate held on Saturday in Spartanburg, South Carolina.
Asked about attacking Iran, Paul said the president is obliged to follow the Constitution and go through Congress before attacking the country. He compared the current situation to the one before the United States launched its invasion of Iraq in 2003.

“I’m afraid what’s going on right now is similar to the war propaganda that went on against Iraq,” he said.
Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich strongly advocated going to war with Iran. Romney said that if “crippling sanctions” fail, military action would be used because it is “unacceptable” for Iran to become a nuclear power like the United States, Russia, Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.
“If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if you elect Mitt Romney, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon,” said Romney.
Last week in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Romney said that as president he would send war ships to the region and work with Israel to undermine Iran.
Gingrich advocated “maximum covert operations” and assassinating Iran’s scientists. He said the United States should destroy Iran’s “systems, all of it covertly, all of it deniable.”
He previously said as president he would “green light” an Israeli attack on Iran. He doesn’t think it right for the United States to tell an ally and one “whose people have already endured one holocaust” that it may not do what it deems necessary for its own survival.
Gingrich has also called for bombing Iran’s oil refinery in addition to its nuclear facilities.
Herman Cain did not advocate attacking Iran directly but said the United States should increase sanctions, deploy ballistic missile warships, and assist the CIA’s color revolution effort to topple the country’s government.
Prior to the latest debate, Rick Santorum released a radio ad bragging about his experience on the Armed Services Committee and his efforts aimed at Iran. He also called for covert attacks on Iran and the murder of its scientists.
Iran has accused the U.S. of orchestrating a color revolution.
In 2009, Iran said it discovered an effort by the CIA to orchestrate a “soft revolution” in the country. The plan was based in Dubai and similar to a U.S. plan that targeted the Soviet Union in 1959, according to the director of the counterespionage department of the Intelligence Ministry.
Iran blamed the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, the Soros Foundation, AIPAC, and said agents in the Azerbaijan Republic, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait were used in the effort.
At the time, the Brookings Institute produced a report calling for provoking war with Iran, arming and supporting terrorists within the county, and funding and organizing a color revolution.
A terror campaign against Iran’s nuclear scientists is already underway. In August, Iran prosecuted a man it claimed was part of an Israeli assassination effort.
A source in Israel’s intelligence community told the German magazine Der Spiegel earlier this year that Mossad was behind the assassinastion of Dariush Rezaeinejad, a member of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. Iran has blamed Mossad, the CIA and MI6 for assassinating its scientists.
In May of 2007, then president Bush gave approval to the CIA to launch a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, according to current and former officials in the intelligence community.
The United States has supported and encouraged the Iranian militant group, Jundullah, that has conducted deadly raids inside Iran.
The al-Qaeda affiliated Sunni terrorist group has launched a number of attacks, including one in October of 2009 that killed over forty people. The CIA has supported other terrorist groups in Iran as well, including Mujahedeen-e Khalq.
On Saturday, Iran’s FARS News Agency pointed to research conducted by Prison Planet.com and Paul Joseph Watson citing “several credited and credible individuals, including US intelligence whistleblowers and former military personnel” revealing that the United States is currently conducting covert military operations inside Iran using guerilla groups to carry out attacks on the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps.

(Paul Joseph Watson) Congressman Ron Paul was a victim of what later transpired to be a deliberate policy on behalf of CBS News to restrict the air time of certain candidates during last night’s Republican debate, after he was afforded just 90 seconds of speaking time during the course of the event in South Carolina last night.
Paul’s campaign reacted furiously to the Texan being limited to 90 seconds in what was a 90 minute-long debate, with Campaign Manager John Tate blasting out an email entitled “What a Joke,” in which he stated, “It literally made me sick watching the mainstream media once again silence the one sane voice in this election. The one dissenter to a decade of unchecked war. The one candidate who stands for true defense and actual constitutional government. Ron Paul was silenced, in perhaps the most important debate of the cycle.”
A scientific study undertaken by the University of Minnesota last month confirmed that Ron Paul had been given the least speaking time out of all the Republican candidates during the debates, even less than the likes of John Huntsman and Rick Santorum, who have routinely been beaten by Paul in national polls.
As Marc Fortier points out, an email inadvertently sent to Michelle Bachmann’s campaign clearly indicates that certain candidates were given less air time as a result of a deliberate CBS policy.
When a CBS staffer referenced how Bachmann’s campaign had made representatives available for an after-debate webshow, CBS News political analyst John Dickerson responded by saying, “Okay let’s keep it loose though since she’s not going to get many questions and she’s nearly off the charts in the hopes that we can get someone else.”
Dickerson’s admission that CBS had deliberately ensured Bachmann was “not going to get many questions” during the debate indicated “a planned effort to limit questions to Michele Bachmann at tonight’s CBS/National Journal Debate,” the Bachmann campaign said in a statement.
Obviously, that policy of limiting air time to certain candidates was also applied to Congressman Ron Paul, despite the fact that he has consistently won straw polls and proven himself as a top tier candidate in national polls.
As we have documented, despite his popularity the establishment media has deliberately downplayed and sidelined Paul’s campaign.
After Ron Paul finished a close second to Bachmann in the highly regarded Ames straw poll, and was subsequently blacklisted by the corporate press, Politico’s Roger Simon said the reason for him being ignored was that “the media doesn’t believe he has a hoot in hells chance of winning the Iowa caucuses, the Republican nomination or winning the presidency, so we’re gonna ignore him.”
“We are in the business of kicking candidates out of the race,” CNN host Howard Kurtz responded.

(Paul Joseph Watson) In a response to a question asked by Infowars correspondent Robert Wanek at Iowa State University during the recent Ames straw poll, Ron Paul said that the federal government was preparing for civil unrest and martial law in the United States.

Paul was asked for his opinion on whether H.R. 645 (The National Emergency Centers Establishment Act) could lead to Americans being incarcerated in detention camps during a time of martial law.
“Yeah, that’s their goal, they’re setting up the stage for violence in this country, no doubt about it,” responded Paul.
The National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645, first introduced in January 2009, mandates the establishment of “national emergency centers” to be located on military installations for the purpose of providing “temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster,” according to the bill.
The legislation also states that the camps will be used to “provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations”.
Ominously, the bill also states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse.
The legislation was referred to Committee and did not proceed any further, but it was not rejected in a vote and can be re-introduced at any time in a new session of Congress.
As we reported yesterday, in the aftermath of the UK riots, police departments in the United States are being trained to deal with rioting and civil unrest.
Back in 2008, U.S. troops returning from Iraq were earmarked for “homeland patrols” with one of their roles including helping with “civil unrest and crowd control”.
In December 2008, the Washington Post reported on plans to station 20,000 more U.S. troops inside America for purposes of “domestic security” from September 2011 onwards, an expansion of Northcom’s militarization of the country in preparation for potential civil unrest following a total economic collapse or a mass terror attack.
The United States has continuity of government plans in place should martial law be declared by the President. However, the details of those plans have been so tightly guarded that even Congressman and Homeland Security Committee member Peter DeFazio (D – OR), who has the necessary security clearance, was denied access to view the material when he requested to do so back in July 2007.
“I just can’t believe they’re going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack,” DeFazio told the Oregonian at the time, adding, “Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right.”
Congressman Paul has warned about preparations for martial law before, telling the Alex Jones Show, “They’re putting their back up against the wall and saying, if need be we’re going to have martial law.”
Watch Alex Jones’ special comment on this issue below.

(Kurt Nimmo) Ron Paul has announced on his Facebook page that he will not seek re-election for his seat in the House of Representatives.

“I have decided not to seek re-election for my House seat in 2012 and will focus all of my energy winning the Presidency,” he wrote this morning.

Paul currently serves the 14th congressional district of Texas, which encompasses the area south and southwest of the Greater Houston region, including Galveston.

In April, during an appearance on the Alex Jones Show, Dr. Paul said he would make a final decision on his candidacy in May. “We’re getting awfully close,” Paul explained, “and there are just a few other things I have to iron out personally to make my final decision.”

On May 13, Paul officially announced he will run for the GOP nomination for president. “Time has come around to the point where the people are agreeing with much of what I’ve been saying for 30 years. So, I think the time is right,” he said.

( Trevor Lyman) While the online poll conducted by CNN shows Ron Paul as the clear winner with 75% of the votes, CNN reporters pull a fast one by citing a lesser known poll hosted at National Journal claiming Ron Paul came in at 0%.

CNN discards their own poll in favor of another poll that shows results more to their liking.

(Jay Root) Texas Rep. Ron Paul announced Friday that he will run for the GOP nomination for president in 2012, the third attempt for the man known on Capitol Hill as “Dr. No” for his enthusiasm for bashing runaway spending and government overreach.

“Time has come around to the point where the people are agreeing with much of what I’ve been saying for 30 years. So, I think the time is right,” said the 75-year-old Paul, who first ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988.

Paul made his announcement in an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America” from New Hampshire, where he planned his first event for his presidential campaign on Friday.

(Cameron Joseph) Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, whose outspoken libertarian views and folksy style made him a cult hero during two previous presidential campaigns, will announce on Tuesday that he’s going to try a third time.

Sources close to Paul, who is in his 12th term in the House, said he will unveil an exploratory presidential committee, a key step in gearing up for a White House race. He will also unveil the campaign’s leadership team in Iowa, where the first votes of the presidential election will be cast in caucuses next year.

Paul, 75, ran as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, finishing with less than one half a percent of the vote. After more than a decade as a Republican congressman, Paul gave it another shot in the 2008 presidential election, gaining attention for being the only Republican candidate calling for the end to the war in Iraq and for his “money bomb” fundraising strategy, which brought in millions of dollars from online donors in single-day pushes.

Paul took 10 percent of the vote in the Iowa caucuses and 8 percent in New Hampshire’s primary. He finished second, with 14 percent of the vote, in the Nevada caucuses, and eventually finished fourth in the Republican nominating process with 5.6 percent of the total vote. Paul’s campaign book, The Revolution: A Manifesto also reached No. 1 onThe New York Times best-seller list in 2008.

This would seem to be an ideal year for Paul: Since the last election, the Republican Party has moved much closer to his view on deficit reduction, which made him an early tea party favorite. All of the party’s top-tier presidential hopefuls are focusing on lowering debt, government spending, and tax rates, issues Paul has long advocated.

(Sahil Kapur) Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul said Wednesday he’s considering a 2012 run for his state’s open seat in the US Senate.

“It’s certainly crossed my mind,” Paul toldThe Hill after a poll found him to be a strong contender for the seat, to be vacated by Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison, who announced her retirement last week.

The survey by the Democratic-affiliated Public Policy Polling, released Wednesday, found that Paul was Texas Republicans’ second choice of candidates to replace Hutchison, just three points behind state Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst.

Dewhurst had 23 percent; Paul had 20.

“I was surprised,” Paul responded, hedging that it wouldn’t be the first time in his 20-year House career that he’s entertained the prospect of a Senate run. “[S]o I don’t know that it means much.” Continue reading →

(By Brian Montopoli) Every four years, in between presidential elections, conservative activists gather to take stock of some of the most prominent names in the Republican Party — and consider which of them has what it takes for a successful run for the White House.

That gathering, the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, takes place this Thursday through Saturday in New Orleans. Among the speakers will be Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Bobby Jindal, Michael Steele, and Sarah Palin, whose speech will be closely watched for signs as to whether the former Alaska governor is serious about a presidential run or is opting instead a lucrative media career.

Ronpaul.com

Notably absent, oddly enough, will be the only two prominent Republicans who have been doing the most staff hiring, fundraising, travel and networking to lay the groundwork for a 2012 run: Former Massachusetts governor and 2008 GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, who has elected to continue his book tour instead of coming to the conference, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who pulled out in order to attend a welcome home ceremony for members of the armed forces. Continue reading →

4. Paul was the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have objected to and voted against the Iraq War Resolution and continues to oppose U.S. presence in Iraq, charging the government with using the War on Terror to curtail civil liberties.

5. He believes a just declaration of war after the September 11, 2001, attacks should have been directed against the actual terrorists, Al-Qaeda, rather than against Iraq, which has not been linked to the attacks.

6. In 2003, Paul said that when America seeks war, it must be sought only to protect citizens, it must be declared by the U.S. Congress, and it must be concluded when the victory is complete as previously planned, which would allow all resources to be dedicated to victory. Continue reading →

Former New Mexico Republican Gov. Gary Johnson is a teetotaling triathlete who looks the part of the laid-back Mountain West politician.

But don’t let the jeans and black mock turtleneck he’s sporting on his new website fool you: Johnson is starting to sound like a mad-as-hell populist with an eye cast on 2012 and the building fury aimed at Washington.

“I’m finding myself really angry over spending and the deficit,” he said in an interview with POLITICO this week. “I’m finding myself really angry over what’s happening in the Middle East, the decision to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely. I’m angry about cap and trade. And I’ve been on record for a long time on the failed war on drugs.”

Is that enough to design a presidential campaign around? It might be, at a time of tea parties, rage at bailouts, job loss and general voter discontent. And there is plainly an opportunity for some politician to harness the anti-establishment, populist grass-roots fervor that is right leaning but untethered to any party at the moment.